Late last week I resurrected a common meme around Hitler’s downfall video but this time applied it to analyst relations.
In the original post, I simply let the parody of the video speak for itself but after reviewing the many comments on the blog and on twitter, I have noticed that quite a few people are commenting about what they can learn from this.
Needless to say, when AR is done well the scenario that this video portrays should never happen. Here are some of the key points:
There is some argument as to whether we need to do any EMEA outreach or whether it is sufficient to just speak to those in the US
Being an EMEA AR pro, this one really irks me. Even though the US analysts may sometimes be the lead for a specific topic area, this is not always the case. What’s more when end users wish to buy a solution they often ask the local analysts in their region for guidance. If you haven’t spoken to them, how can you hope for positive commentary. Finally the EMEA analysts can often give valuable advice regarding how to refine the messaging to make it more relevant for their geography as well as give advice on local issues that may not be important in other regions.
We are only positioned as a challenger. They scored us down because we didn’t provide enough customer evidence
There should never be any surprises when it comes to the MQ being published. Make sure you run plenty of inquiries and SAS days to fully understand where the analysts are positioning you and why and what you need to do to change their perception. Do the process and document everything and obviously you should make sure that your executive team are prepared for the eventual placement and understand why you are positioned where you are.
We were positioned well in the Forrester Wave… a well-respected alternative
Always investigate alternatives. Despite many execs and sales people often being incapably of looking beyond the MQ, there are many tools and analysts out there. It all depends on your objectives and defining which solution is right for you.
There are many more things you can take from this video as I have tried to include as many clichés as possible. Most importantly remember that this is created in jest as a parody for our wonderful AR industry. I hope you like it.
Other posts on the Gartner Magic Quadrant
- [GUEST POST] Gartner Announces pilot to handle mergers & acquisitions updates for Magic Quadrants
- [GUEST POST] IIAR Webinar: ‘Tis the season for Gartner Methodologies
- IIAR Webinar: Gartner Research Methodologies including the Magic Quadrant
- The IIAR Tragic Quadrant for 2017
- Constellation and the curse of the (not so) magic quadrant
- Do you need to pay Gartner to be in the Magic Quadrant?
- Who’s really shaping the digital future?
- The IIAR “Tragic Quadrant”
- [GUEST POST] Analysts’ Dirty Little Secrets
- Wrap-up: Netscout vs. Gartner re. Magic Quadrant positioning
- [GUEST POST] #Visionaries, #Disruptors and Complete Lunatics
- Is there Really Magic in the MQ?
- IIAR Webinar – Gartner Magic Quadrant Enhancements 2013
- Examining The New Gartner Interactive Magic Quadrant
- [Guest Post] Why IT Vendors Should Take Industry Analysts (More) Seriously
- [GUEST POST] Big Dogs don’t yap: the secret ingredient for MQ success
- [GUEST POST] Timing is everything
- Gartner publishes MQ FAQ
- Gartner details the MQ process
- Downfall: Gartner MQ and learnings
- WORLD EXCLUSIVE: Gideon Gartner on the IIAR Blog!
- Is shooting on the referee productive?
- IIAR publishes Best Practice Paper on Managing the Gartner MQ
- MQs, accreditation and a debate on IT services – all in the same evening
- Gartner engages in debates on their blog
Jonny,
I think the main learning point for AR pros is the “No Suprises” point: if you do your job properly (that is briefing the analyst before, asking for the draft review, making sure you engage with the analyst to clarify some points, etc).
I’m always amazed when I hear some of my peers saying they don’t know when’s the next MQ: what’s complicated in asking the analyst????
For analysts, the learning point is that their work is subject to quite some scrutiny because of the high visibility of Magic Quadrants. They should expect this and be ready to comment and provide feedback.
Gartner has gone a long way over the past 3-4 years to make the process more transparent (although I wish they would provide the weightings) and better documented (read more predictable).
But other firms are still behind in the maturity curve, I had some issues with an IDC Insights Short List where the process wasn’t good and criterii choice meant that the analyst wasn’t able to verify the vendors answers. So watch the MQ-clones for process and methodology issues. Oh, and always insist on a draft review of the FULL document.
As a final point on MQ’s type work, analysts should bear in mind that it takes a huge amount of time, up to 100 man-hours in fact -so they should be sensitive to that as well.
Jonny
Just seen this, love the video. Really agree with all of the points only to add that the MQ is a great process to get a vendor to really think long and hard about its USPs or not rather than just believe in the marketing hype and yes there are times when personalities get in the way of a process, but from personal experience the MQ is a great leveller all round, its just that some execs don’t always like to hear the truth and also forget that there are other sources of external analyst wisdom in the market than just Gartner.
Pingback: Report from Forrester’s marketing pitch at the IIAR London Forum « The IIAR Blog
Pingback: Gartner publishes MQ FAQ « The IIAR Blog
Pingback: Wrap-up: Netscout vs. Gartner re. Magic Quadrant positioning | The IIAR Blog
Pingback: [GUEST POST] Analysts’ Dirty Little Secrets | Institute of Industry Analyst Relations (IIAR)